Full text
Martinez v. Campbell
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD F. MARTINEZ, No. 24-5381 D.C. No. 1:22-cv-01549-JLT-SAB Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
TAMMY CAMPBELL, Warden/Chief Deputy Warden; KEN CLARK, Warden (ret.); E. McDANIEL, Chief Executive Officer; E. SILVA, Associate Warden; PILKETON; J. PRUDHEL; C. ROJAS; A. JOHNSON; MORLOCK; ENSINAS; BUENO, Correctional Officer; ANAYA, Correctional Officer; GURROLA, Correctional Officer; TOMZEK, Correctional Officer; ALVARADO, Correctional Officer; D. MORALES, Correctional Officer; L. HURICK, Correctional Officer; J. STEPP, Licensed Vocational Nurse; L. CARROL, Plant Operations Manager; CONNIE GIPSON, Dir. Adult Institut. CDCR; KATHLEEN ALLISON, Dir. Adult Institut. CDCR; D. HICINBOTHAM, Classification Staff Representative; C/O GUTIERREZ, Correctional Officer; K. MATTA; SIMUS; C. MORROW,
Defendants - Appellees.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2025** Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Ronald F. Martinez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Eighth Amendment violations arising during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Martinez’s action because Martinez failed to allege facts sufficient to show deliberate indifference to an excessive risk of harm to Martinez. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (holding that to establish Eighth Amendment liability, a plaintiff must show that the defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate’s health and safety); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Dismissal of Martinez’s state law claims was proper because Martinez failed to state a federal claim. See Dyack v. Northern Mariana Islands, 317 F.3d 1030, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) permits the district court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims where the district court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction”).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
Footnotes
[2] 24-5381
[3] 24-5381